Legal

February 11, 2026 Published by Huronia Chapter - By Jake Fine

No Excuse To Avoid Paying Common Expenses

From the CCI Huronia Winter 2026 Condo Buzz Newsletter

*2512322 Ontario Ltd. v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2255 (2025 ONSC 410)

* this matter has been appealed, and a decision of said appeal has not been released as of January 22, 2026

A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 2512322 Ontario Ltd. v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2255, serves as a powerful reminder to condominium owners: you cannot withhold common expenses under any circumstances, even if you believe the condominium corporation has wronged you.

In this case, the numbered company, which was the owner of a commercial unit, stopped paying common expenses in 2019, due to the actions and/or inaction of the condominium corporation, including but not limited to completing necessary repairs and improperly charging it for the entire condominium corporation’s water consumption. On that basis, the owner argued that it was entitled to stop paying until the disputes were resolved.

By the time the matter reached the court, the arrears, originally just over $20,000, had ballooned to nearly $1 million after years of nonpayment, interest, and legal fees. The numbered company asked the court to declare that its obligations had been “set off” by its complaints. TSCC 2255, in turn, asked the court to dismiss those claims, relying on section 84(3)(b) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

Justice Koehnen agreed with the condominium corporation entirely. The court held that the Condominium Act, 1998 leaves no room for creative interpretations, self-help remedies, or unilateral deductions. Section 84(3)(b) states, in simple, clear and unqualified terms, that:

“An owner is not exempt from the obligation to contribute to the common expenses even if the owner is making a claim against the corporation.”

The court emphasized that this provision exists for an important reason: if an owner were entitled to avoid common expense payments whenever they felt a condominium corporation fell short of its obligations, then it unnecessarily complicates the efficient management of condominium corporations. Allowing owners to stop paying whenever they believe the corporation has fallen short would undermine the financial stability of every condominium community and place an unfair burden on other owners who continue to pay.

Justice Kohnen further reaffirmed that the obligation to pay common expenses and the corporation’s duty to perform repairs or services are two separate matters. Owners must pursue their complaints through legal mechanisms while continuing to pay common expenses in full and on time.

The Upshot

his decision reinforces a longstanding but seldom challenged rule:
There is absolutely no excuse for withholding common expenses.

Condominium living depends on collective responsibility. As this case makes clear, withholding common expenses is not a permissible negotiation tactic, and given the powers afforded to a condominium corporation under the Condominium Act, 1998, it is a path that can lead to serious financial consequences.

Further Guidance to Condominium Corporations When Handling Accommodation Requests

Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 37 v. Baha (2025 ONSC 3486)

In an appeal from the Condominium Authority Tribunal (“CAT”), the Divisional Court dismissed the condominium corporation’s appeal and upheld the CAT’s finding that the corporation had violated the Human Rights Code and was required to pay $15,000 in damages.

The dispute centred on the presence of a second dog in Ms. Baha’s unit, belonging to her partner, Mr. Murphy. Although Mr. Murphy provided multiple medical notes confirming that his service dog, Rylie, was a necessary disability related accommodation, the condominium corporation refused to accept this evidence and pursued a compliance application before the CAT.

The CAT ultimately determined that the corporation was not entitled to demand intrusive details regarding Mr. Murphy’s disability related needs and that it was inappropriate for the corporation to disregard the professional opinion of Mr. Murphy’s physicians that Rylie was required as an accommodation. Given the corporation’s conduct throughout the process, the CAT ordered $15,000 in damages in favour of Ms. Baha for the discriminatory treatment that she and Mr. Murphy experienced.

This decision serves as an important reminder that, while condominium corporations may seek documentation to substantiate an accommodation request, such requests must remain reasonable and sensitive to the privacy concerns inherent in disability related matters.

In this case, WNCC 37 repeatedly sought increasingly intrusive medical information and insisted on further justification as to why the second service dog was “medically needed” rather than merely “preferred.” Although earlier case law may have suggested that a corporation could request more detailed medical evidence related to the medical necessity of an animal (such as, in the case of a weight limit contained in a condominium corporation’s governing documents, whether a dog under that weight limit would be satisfactory accommodation), recent CAT decisions make clear that where a qualified medical professional confirms that a specific animal is necessary, that evidence should generally suffice. Corporations are not entitled to second-guess medical judgment or propose alternative accommodations based on their own views.

Ultimately, WNCC 37 became overly rigid and focused on strict rule enforcement, rather than applying the established principles of accommodation under the Human Rights Code. Where credible medical documentation supports an accommodation, a condominium corporation cannot insist on additional information simply because it disagrees with the recommended treatment.

Finally, the Divisional Court confirmed that the CAT has jurisdiction, under s. 1.44 of the Condominium Act, 1998, to award up to $25,000 in damages, including for discriminatory treatment, injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect resulting from WNCC 37’s unreasonable stance on the accommodation request.

The Upshot

1. A condominium corporation must conduct its due diligence when it receives a request for accommodation, but it must be more flexible in its approach;
2. here is growing case law before the CAT indicating the difference between medical need and medical preference; and,
3. CAT has jurisdiction to award damages for discriminatory treatment by a condominium corporation.

---

Jake Fine
Lash Condo Law